How exactly is ISIS a threat to our Vital National Interests?

[SLD]

Why do we do this? Something bad happens. Ooooh! We must do "something" about it. Run about, scream and shout, the world is falling! Aahhhh! Do something, Obama, quick!

Our policy debates have become insane. It doesn't matter what the issue is, there is a demand that on the one hand we fix every problem in the world, and second that we don't use US troops to do so. This is bizarre. Not every problem is our problem to solve. Obama's comment that we have no strategy to defeat ISIS was exactly correct. The problem with Obama is he won't stick to his guns and explain precisely why. Instead every pundit says we have to have a strategy to defeat ISIS, but no one has ever really made a convincing case as to why. ISIS may be made up of some real sons of bitches, but they are a problem for several middle eastern nations to deal with, not us. I found it extremely telling that Jordan's response to this threat was to reiterate that they felt that Palistinian people and their problems were more important. Saudi Arabia has pretty much issued a collective yawn. Only the Iraqi Shiites and Kurds, along with Syria (to some extent) taken the threat seriously. Why? Because they understand that ISIS is a local threat and not likely to expand much further than their earlier maximum. They are not a threat to the US or our interests. They may be a pain in the ass to some degree, but hardly a threat. We don't need a national interest. We need to just help Iraq and the Kurds to defeat these SOBs. Give them some money, weapons and training. But to risk our lives for their fight is just stupid knee jerk reaction to people screaming that we need to do something. ISIS did not kill a single American until we decided to start bombing them. I've never seen where they have even threatened to instigate attacks against the US prior to that. Maybe I missed it.

Can someone please identify for me why they are a threat to our vital national interests?

SLD

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

About as much as al Qaeda was. This stuff gets a bit complicated with all of the meddling we have done over the decades.

 

[SLD]

How is it the same threat as Al Qaeda? Have they threatened to attack the US precisely? I know they don't like us, but I have yet to see any evidence that they were ever planning on any attacks against us like Al Qaeda.

SLD

 

[arkirk]

How is it the same threat as Al Qaeda? Have they threatened to attack the US precisely? I know they don't like us, but I have yet to see any evidence that they were ever planning on any attacks against us like Al Qaeda.

SLD

Obama has redefined our "vital national interests" to mean the interests of the oil companies seeking oil from that region. It still is ALL ABOUT THE OIL. Our actual interests should be to free ourselves from dependence on things from this region and there are plenty of alternatives. The more alternative energy sources a country possesses, the less interested countries are in the tangled corrupt mess Bush, Cheney et al have created in the middle east. That is why we are seeing a shrinking "coalition of the willing" in Europe.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How is it the same threat as Al Qaeda? Have they threatened to attack the US precisely?

You'll need to note a proper word in my post of "was", as in pre-9/11, pre-bin Laden being the big bad guy, prior to the Fatwa against the US. al Qaeda was something else before it became the al Qaeda we are a bit more familiar with.

I know they don't like us, but I have yet to see any evidence that they were ever planning on any attacks against us like Al Qaeda.

They may never try to strike the US. But what seems certain is that our actions or inaction can significantly alter what will happen.

How is it the same threat as Al Qaeda? Have they threatened to attack the US precisely? I know they don't like us, but I have yet to see any evidence that they were ever planning on any attacks against us like Al Qaeda.

SLD

Obama has redefined our "vital national interests" to mean the interests of the oil companies seeking oil from that region. It still is ALL ABOUT THE OIL. Our actual interests should be to free ourselves from dependence on things from this region and there are plenty of alternatives. The more alternative energy sources a country possesses, the less interested countries are in the tangled corrupt mess Bush, Cheney et al have created in the middle east. That is why we are seeing a shrinking "coalition of the willing" in Europe.

One thing to keep in mind, this doesn't have to be about the oil companies as much as virtually unfettered Western access to the supply so our economies don't collapse.

 

[Ford]

How is it the same threat as Al Qaeda?

I don't think it is the same threat, but a similar threat born of unintended consequences.

Al Qaeda came into existence in no small part because some idiots got it into their heads that arming and training Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan was a super awesome way to fight the Soviet Union.

As I understand things, the "Islamic State" is an offshoot of (or a new incarnation of) what was known as "Al Qaeda in Iraq." An organization which would not have existed had we not gone blundering into modern Mesopotamia with dreams of enacting "regime change."

So the question at hand is, what do we do with this problem we helped to create? Or perhaps more importantly, where will this problem be in 20 years if we do nothing?

20 years ago, Al Qaeda wasn't that big of a threat. Just some crazy Arab in Sudan threatening world wide jihad. Five or six years later, folks in the know were writing memos with words like "Bin Laden determined to attack" and mentioning hijacked planes. For the most part, we did nothing. Lobbed a couple cruise missiles and washed our hands of the whole mess.


Now, I'm not saying I have confidence in Obama's "degrade and destroy" strategy. Nor do I have a lot of confidence in the "coalition" he's maybe assembled. But the basic idea - we need to nip this ISIS shit in the bud - I can get behind that. Our policy seems to be driven at least in part by an understanding that this is a problem we helped to create, and as such we need to be part of the solution.

 

[SLD]

How exactly are they a threat to the Middle Eastern Oil states? I fail to see how they are even close to conquering Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Protecting the flow of oil may very well be a vital national interest. But these jerks don't even come close to imperiling the flow of oil.

No I see this new "strategy" as nothing but more Obama appeasing his critics before the election.

SLD

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How exactly are they a threat to the Middle Eastern Oil states? I fail to see how they are even close to conquering Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

And based on the markets reaction so far, they'd agree with you.

Protecting the flow of oil may very well be a vital national interest. But these jerks don't even come close to imperiling the flow of oil.

No I see this new "strategy" as nothing but more Obama appeasing his critics before the election.

Or trying to appear to look like they want to deal with this with the brutal murders of two Americans? Obama hasn't exactly flown over the handles on ISIS. They've been tracking this for a while, and the big lesson learned is that if Iraq and the Middle East want to defeat ISIS, they have to do it. We can help from the sidelines and offer support, but the local Arab populations will pitch a fit and back idiots like ISIS because the US is on the other side.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They are no more threat to us than a wildfire is to a town--nothing at present, possibly serious down the road.

All the Islamists want to bring the world under their domination, the only difference is who they want to conquer first.

 

[Deepak]

How is it the same threat as Al Qaeda? Have they threatened to attack the US precisely? I know they don't like us, but I have yet to see any evidence that they were ever planning on any attacks against us like Al Qaeda.

SLD

Have you read any of their statements regarding the US, or for that matter watched the Vice video where they had a reporter embedded with their press officer?

It's a case of exactly what it says on the tin. An argument could be made that they don't have the means to attack the US, an argument I'd call specious, but to question whether they would do harm if they could I'd think is exactly wrong.

 

[untermensche]

People have said it. They threaten our oil.

 

[arkirk]

How exactly are they a threat to the Middle Eastern Oil states? I fail to see how they are even close to conquering Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Protecting the flow of oil may very well be a vital national interest. But these jerks don't even come close to imperiling the flow of oil.

No I see this new "strategy" as nothing but more Obama appeasing his critics before the election.

SLD

In case you didn't know, Iraq is a major oil producing state. Its oil is high quality and easily pumped out of the ground. Our national interests are being defined as the interests of American oil companies in PROFIT. "Vital national intersts" is corporatist code talk for oil interests. We have banked too much on this obsolete source of energy and have equated our national fate on relationships with crooked and despotic regimes to keep us in THEIR OIL.

Jimmy Higgins has drunk the cool aid and thinks our economy will collapse if we fail to gain acceptance of some rulers in the middle east. If our economy is that fragile, it is because it has been built with no thought for what MUST BE OUR FUTURE...successively cleaner and less environmentally destructive practices must be our methods. In a way, this could work out for us if we would only alter our course and invest in a real future.

I find it ironic that the most modern avionics and high technology we have is devoted to keeping us rooted in a failing oligarchical system of trading in dirty and depleting carbon sources...all of which provide no real access to a real future. The people involved in this scramble for oil and gas are all cutthroats regardless of their country of origin. We are taught to sneer at what must ultimately be our future and we really devote altogether too much blood and treasure in pursuit of a dirty and losing proposition. When our leadership persists in this mad contest, they only make new enemies and irritate the older ones. It is in our national interest to disengage with oil potentates and stop humoring mad islamists and hypocritical illegitimate kingdoms. The way to lead the world is to be firmly on the road to better practices and environmental responsibility. These wars in the middle east and southern Asia are nothing more than a roadblock to the eventual establishment of a lasting peace. We need to produce the means for peace and that is not bombs and guns and kissing Saudi Arabian ass.

 

[TV and credit cards]

It all seems so pointless. So we destroy ISIS and then what? Another Islamic Fundamentalist groups pops up somewhere else. Are we going to run out of Islamic Fundamentalists? Remember, these people get a kick out of dying. It just seems to attract more to the bug zapper.
Much emphasis was placed on the British and US passport holders that supposedly went over there for a good old fashion jihad. I was left with the impression that we know much more about their leaving the country than when they may come back. Odd. Seemed liked someone cranked up the fear generator.

I like arkirk's idea but for the life of me, I can not play out in my mind what happens next. It'd be nice but I don't see it happening, particularly worldwide. Do we stop protecting the sea lanes there? Who fills that vacuum? What happens to the likes of Saudi Arabia when it can no longer placate it's people with free cash, if oil was to drop to say, $15 a barrel? What happens to that whole crazy region with their crazy religion?

 

[arkirk]

It all seems so pointless. So we destroy ISIS and then what? Another Islamic Fundamentalist groups pops up somewhere else. Are we going to run out of Islamic Fundamentalists? Remember, these people get a kick out of dying. It just seems to attract more to the bug zapper.
Much emphasis was placed on the British and US passport holders that supposedly went over there for a good old fashion jihad. I was left with the impression that we know much more about their leaving the country than when they may come back. Odd. Seemed liked someone cranked up the fear generator.

I like arkirk's idea but for the life of me, I can not play out in my mind what happens next. It'd be nice but I don't see it happening, particularly worldwide. Do we stop protecting the sea lanes there? Who fills that vacuum? What happens to the likes of Saudi Arabia when it can no longer placate it's people with free cash, if oil was to drop to say, $15 a barrel? What happens to that whole crazy region with their crazy religion?

For there to be real tragic conflict like we are seeing today, there has to be something that is being fought over. In today's terms, that seems to be money. Lesser factions in these crookedly ruled little potentates rise up periodically. New buyers do things to make the market let them in. All of this centers on some foreign outfit wanting to take something out of the country for use elsewhere and crooks scrambling to sell their countrymen out. All of this goes away when the demand goes away. This Sunni/Shia thing is just that...a thing the local crooks use to get the action they seek...power to get the money from the sales.

When the pie in the sky of foreign promises of wealth leave, then the people will slowly return to working on their own real problems. The violence won't entirely vanish because that is a truly fucked up culture they have had for a very long time. The least we can do is perhaps the best...keeping weapons they can hurt themselves with out of their hands. As it is, with our failure to socially deal with our needs, we have become just another desperate player in their lands. It isn't truly "we" because the average American does not approve of these wars but is powerless in the face of billions of lobbying bucks being spent to keep the oil interests dug in. In many cases, these are actually multi-national corporations.

The close of the 20th Century had a lesson for us...whether or not the mighty are right...that does not mean that might always wins. I think we need to win by refusing to play in this sick game.

 

[Underseer]

How is it the same threat as Al Qaeda? Have they threatened to attack the US precisely? I know they don't like us, but I have yet to see any evidence that they were ever planning on any attacks against us like Al Qaeda.

SLD

Obama has redefined our "vital national interests" to mean the interests of the oil companies seeking oil from that region. [...]

Obama redefined what?

Don't you mean to say that Obama kept the definition established by Bush?

I'm not any happier with Obama than most people. He's surrounded himself with DLC Clinton cronies, and as expected, most of their policies seem to be centered around continuing the bad policies of the previous Republican administration. As mad as I am at Obama and the DLC for that, on what grounds are you claiming a "redefinition"? Your use of the word "redefine" assumes that the previous administration had some other definition of "vital national interests"?

May I ask what you think that other definition was?

 

[SLD]

How is it the same threat as Al Qaeda? Have they threatened to attack the US precisely? I know they don't like us, but I have yet to see any evidence that they were ever planning on any attacks against us like Al Qaeda.

SLD

Have you read any of their statements regarding the US, or for that matter watched the Vice video where they had a reporter embedded with their press officer?

It's a case of exactly what it says on the tin. An argument could be made that they don't have the means to attack the US, an argument I'd call specious, but to question whether they would do harm if they could I'd think is exactly wrong.

I have seen no quotes about the US one way or the other until after we started to bomb them. They did not kill any Americans until then. As far as I have seen they have never uttered a word about attacking the US until we started getting involved in bombing runs against them.

There are 7 billion people on the planet. Probably hundreds of millions hate the US, and would love to "strike" at it. So what? They have no serious capability to do so and so are not a threat. How many Russians, Mexicans, Chinese have an enduring hatred for the US? Where are our operations against them? What's our strategy for degrading and containing them?

All I have heard is pundits saying over and over again that ISIS is a threat to the US. But no one explaining precisely how. How are they going to attack the US? Are they really so easily able to penetrate our defenses? Are they going to get in a jet airplane and do a suicide run on New York or DC? No. They couldn't even begin to do such. Could they attack shipping in the Persian Gulf to disrupt oil supplies? I'll agree that is important to protect, but it is bovine scat to argue that they are even close to having such a capability. They may have taken over parts of Iraq and Syria, but they have been utterly incapable of expanding out of Sunni held areas. They don't even threaten Iraqi oil production (which actually isn't very much). The Kurds continue to ship oil out through Turkey, and the southern Iraqi oil fields are not in danger of being over run.

The threat to our oil interests is thus greatly exagerrated. The real threat is merely a political one to Obama. His original strategy of "no strategy" was precisely correct. Fuck 'em. We'll provide weapons to help contain them, some humanitarian assistance and intel coordination. But by and large, as a military operation this is something for various middle eastern nations to solve. If they were really a threat to Saudi Arabian oil fields, then the Saudis would take care of them. They have the military capabilities to defend themselves against this threat. They just like for us to spend the money and blood doing their dirty work.

Even assuming that as of now they have plans to have one of their US citizens who has joined them to return to the US and do some sort of terrible terrorist attack, how exactly is this new "strategy" going to prevent that? How will attacking them in Iraq and Syria prevent that? Stopping that kind of attack is something we do by beefing up security at home, not stirring up them to attack here. Arguably the threat is now greater of an attack on the US.

This whole thing is insane. It's just bowing to political pressure to do something. It's Obama pandering to the neocons because they are using this to hyperventilate prior to the mid term elections. If Obama had originally come out in favor of massive bombing campaign they would have howled against that. The problem with Obama is he won't stick to his guns. He won't go on TV and call their criticisms for what they are, utter bullshit. I think he has the right instincts, but fails to defend his policies. He is right not to get involved in Ukraine, but he shows strength and determination, drawing a line in the sand when it comes to NATO allies. The right wing somehow interprets these actions as weakness. Bullshit. He is sticking to our allies and making sure that any potential enemies know where the line is. Ukraine is not our fight. The American people would support him (few Americans really want to go to war over Ukraine or Iraq) if he would just stop pandering to the neocons in some sort of misguided attempt to sway the elections.

SLD

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

They are no more threat to us than a wildfire is to a town--nothing at present, possibly serious down the road.

All the Islamists want to bring the world under their domination, the only difference is who they want to conquer first.

Or, to bring precision to that analogy - a cigarette that is in an ashtray that might blow out of the ashtray that might land on a leaf that might ignite the leaf that might blow into some dry grass that might send up some sparks ... that might cause an actual small fire on the other side of the river from the town.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

They are no more threat to us than a wildfire is to a town--nothing at present, possibly serious down the road.

All the Islamists want to bring the world under their domination, the only difference is who they want to conquer first.

Or, to bring precision to that analogy - a cigarette that is in an ashtray that might blow out of the ashtray that might land on a leaf that might ignite the leaf that might blow into some dry grass that might send up some sparks ... that might cause an actual small fire on the other side of the river from the town.

... and therefore, it's cool to shoot a missile at anyone trying to light up a cigarette.

 

[arkirk]

They are no more threat to us than a wildfire is to a town--nothing at present, possibly serious down the road.

All the Islamists want to bring the world under their domination, the only difference is who they want to conquer first.

I was talking with Chicken Little the other day and he said exactly the same thing! You are always telling us what other people want, just like you have some magical way of climbing inside their heads and finding their secret and nepharious desires. You also used the word "ALL" as if you knew these "Islamists" had a desire to conquer the world, starting with perhaps Nevada as soon as they tie down the middle east. They actually may have some reason to attack Nevada as there are a lot of drone joystick operations there...things that kill their women and children.

I seriously think ISIS is too low tech to eliminate its enemies. The middle east has been a chessboard for outside players for a long time. Things like ISIS are likely to continue to issue from lands who are being dominated from the outside. Look at their primitive methods and their primitive notions of justice. Do you really feel this type of barbaric practices (beheading) will ever catch on outside the areas where it is currently being practiced? They chop off heads and Obama's war machines chop off whole families, not just taking the head but splattering the rest of the bodies all over the place.

Your continual mischaracterization of Arabs in general is particularly offensive to me. They are not a modern tightly disciplined organization with technical know how. When we squander our resources killing people half way around the world from us, we only lock in a conflict that will have no end and in turn lock ourselves out of a brighter future.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They are no more threat to us than a wildfire is to a town--nothing at present, possibly serious down the road.

All the Islamists want to bring the world under their domination, the only difference is who they want to conquer first.

Or, to bring precision to that analogy - a cigarette that is in an ashtray that might blow out of the ashtray that might land on a leaf that might ignite the leaf that might blow into some dry grass that might send up some sparks ... that might cause an actual small fire on the other side of the river from the town.

ISIS intends to eventually be a threat to us. The only way they won't be is if they're stopped first, either militarily or by a lack of funding.